That doesn't sound like Christ coming.  It sounds like him staying.  We meet HIM in the clouds.  That's not coming.  And then, after that, more things are going to happen... I don't see how this makes sense... Christ is going to come and rule on earth for 1000 years.  That's what the Bible says and I'm not inclined to believe that it was metaphorical in that context or meaning anything short of 1000 years of Christ on the earth with us.  So if Christ isn't coming to earth then, he'll have to come later.

2

Pastor Rick.

Yes, and I missed it in 2007 and I had already been on board JU for a few months.

Exactly. Glad you resurrected Infogreek's original article. 

This is about the same time and from the same people I first learned of "The Rapture" as well. These people made alot of moola from popularizing Darby's bizarre theory. It really took hold and as a result, alot of people were/are duped into believing it. 

As I understand it, the essence of the Rapture is that sometime soon, Christ will come to earth and secretly "catch up"--rapture--all the "true believers" (who would not include the doctrinally misled Catholics of course!). The "chosen" Protestants could then escape the 7-year tribulation which will see the rise and rule of anti-christ. At the end of the 7 years, Christ will come down to earth, defeat the anti-christ, the Jews will convert, and Christ will reign in Jerusalem for 1,000 years. 

There will definitely be "endtimes" , but no Rapture such as this. 

Of course, he DOES care that you do that, because he IS your priest... but I digress... I could argue doctrine with you all day, Lula, but you already have done that with KFC so many times that I'd hate to go through it again.

I've come to the same conclusion, although as far as the Bible and the endtimes, in addition to my own studies, I rely on the Church and the Patristic understanding of a majority of the Church Fathers. 

I also rely on two books that greatly help describe and expose the Rapture's points. Paul Thigpen, "The Rapture Trap" and David Currie's, "Rapture The Endtime Error That Leaves the Bible Behind."   

on page 27, Thigpen sumarizes the eccentric beliefs of LaHaye and Jenkins:

"These two authors believe taht Christ will invisibly snatch true believers and innocent children, both living and dead, up into Heaven. Their divine abduction will cause massive, worldwide turmoil, and once they are gone, The devil will be free to take control of the world through his puppet, the Antichrist. Gross horrors will accompany this man's wicked reign. But the rapture will have taken place becaasue, according to the authors, God has promised to spare true believers from the evil by snatching them off the planet before the "great tribulation" begins. Later, after the tribulation has reached its climax, Christ will come back yet once more, this time publicly in a "glorious appearing" to defeat the forces of evil and bring history to a close."

He goes on: The problem with this fantastic scenario is that there is nothing in the Bible to support it."  And I agree 100%. 

The Apostles' Creed teaches the coming of Christ to earth in only 2 events. The first at the Incarnation and Christ's second glorious coming at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead. 

That's it. No secret or hidden coming of Christ in between those two. 

There are many Scriptural passages about the return of Christ....St. Matt. 24:27 and 30-31; St.Mark 14:62; 1Cor. 15:51-52, 1Thess. 4:14-17, 2Thess. 1:7-8 and 10 and Rev. 1:7.....all have to do with His Second Coming which is not a secret or hidden event. Rather, it's described as unmistakeably public, universally visible, glorious, full of splendor. The Lord returns on maginficant clouds of glory with brilliant angels and saints and a trumpet blast announcing their arrival; The faithful on earth are gathered to Him while the rest of the world wails at the terrifying sight.

LaHaye and others interpret 1Thess. 4:16-17 to mean that Christ will secretly snatch believers out of homes, cars, to meet the Lord  in the air and escape the "great tribulation".

Thigpen calls the Left Behind books and movie, "spiritual poison"...their authors "will fill your head with flawed history, faulty theology, and twisted interpretations of Scripture. They will lead you astray in matters of eternal importance. ...Don't fall into their trap. 

Catholics aren't into these terms, but I agree with this and a good case could be made to support it. 

One can start by understanding that ancient Hebraic Israel of the Old Covenant (Biblical Judaism), it's laws, rituals and ceremonies as well as the Temple itself ended at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. The rituals and laws of the Old Covenant being abolished now count for nothing, confer no grace and save no one. Worse, they bring a curse upon them who obstinately cling to them. In Gal. 3:10, St.Paul warned the Jews, "for as many as are under the works of the law, are under a curse." In his epistle to the Hebrews 7:18-19, St.Paul further declares, "there is an abrogation of the former commandment, becasue of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection." Thus, said St.Paul, "In saying a new, He [Christ] made the former old, and that which decayeth and grows old is near its end." 8:13. Well, the final end that St. Paul was speaking of came in 70AD.

The beginning of the New covenant in the Blood of the Savior meant the end of Biblical Judaism. At the moment of the Crucifion when the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom, God was making it known that the ceremonies of the Old Covenant were to be abolished by Christ. 

Ancient Israel of the Old Covenant did find its fulfillment in the Christian Church of the New Covenant.  As we read in St.Paul's epistle to the Galatians, however, the early fledgling Christian church had to struggle against "Judaizers" who thought they would combine the practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law under the Old Covenant with the religion of the New Covenant. This tendency had to be fought becasue the rituals of the Old Covenant only foreshadowed the coming of Christ and His New and Everlasting Covenant  and the Sacrifice of the Mass 1Cor. 11:23-27 and to persist in those rituals after Christ's coming would be implicitly to deny that He had come. St.Paul thundered, "O senseless Galations, who hath bewitched you, that you should  not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been set forth, crucified among you...Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the (Old) law, or by the hearing of the faith." Gal. 3:1-2.

This is what believing in the Rapture and all its trimmings will do for you. 

You are making the grand mistake of confusing Old Testament ancient Hebraic Israel and Biblical Judaism  with the modern secular state of Israel whose religion (concept, as you say) is Talmudic Judaism...both of which still reject Christ, His New covenant Church and His teachings. 

The New Testament teaches the Church is the New  Israel.  

No where does Scripture teach two Covenants still existing side by side. 

The New Testament speaks of the dramatic end of the OLd Covenant and the beginning of the New and Eternal Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ.  

St.Paul teaches it is Christ who is the "seed" of Abraham, and thus whoever is incorporated into Him, by means of Baptism, inherits the promise God made to Abraham and becomes a member of God's New Covenant people....the New Israel. 

To understand we must examine Galatians 3:16-27. 

"To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He said not: and to his seeds as of many. But as of one: And to thy seed which is Christ. Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after 430 years [ i.e the covenant with Moses], doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no mor of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise." 

That is, the fulfillment God made to Abraham is seen in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, not in the law of Moses. For if salvation were by operation of the Mosaic law, then it would not have come from God's promise to Abraham. St.Paul continues:

"Why then was the Law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed [Christ], should come to whom He made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of the mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is One. Was the law then against the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ: that we might be justified by faith."

So from this we understand that the purpose of the law was to teach (to be a pedagogue) and to punish transgressions until Christ came. The law could not of itself give life, but it did prepare the way for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and the giving of life (divine or sanctifying grace) and faith with the coming of Christ. St. Paul concludes:

"But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. For you are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ."

That is, since Christ we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, the pedagogue. For now Faith has come, and the baptized who have faith in Christ are the children of God and the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant perfected in Christ. And while the Jewish people in the state of Israel and anywhere, remain "most dear [to God] for the sake of the Fathers" that is, becasue of the patriarchs especially Abraham and Moses, ---nevertheless---"because of unbelief, they were "broken off", from the "olive tree", which is Christ.  But, "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." Rom. 11:20-23, 28. 

That is by conversion and baptism the Jews can be reincorporated into the sole and exclusive New Covenant people of God, which I would argue is the Catholic Church, just as St.Paul himself was. Of the Jewish race, "there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace" Rom. 11:5. and that remnant consists of those Jews who repent, are baptized and become members of the Chruch as St.Paul did. 

You are so right. God's not done with the Jews. He sent His Church to complete His mission to convert them and be baptized that's exactly what St.Peter did beginning in Jerusalem. He baptized thousands into the Church Acts 1:8, and since Christ's mission extends through the end of the world, that must continue. St.John 10:16, Christ said there are other sheep that are not of this fold, that He will bring into His fold ....these "other sheep" are the Jews. 

For many, many years I've enjoyed reading Paul's letter to the Galatians, as to many others.  

Do you understand the idea of a renewed Israel as referred to in Tom Wright's lecture: Jesus and the Kingdom? @ NT Wright Page

Peace,

Aeryck

 Yes, I've read and underlined a good many parts of Currie's appendix on hyperpreterism. Currie's book is dyn-o-mite! All 486 pages! 

He writes about doing justice to the origninal intent of St.John....that the Apocalypse can best be understood through the lens of the first century. ..that this interpretation of the visions was widespread a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation...that he believes St.John intended us to see the first century in his descriptions, and then apply those lessons to our own times.

that hyperpreterism is an over reaction..."Hyperpreterism emphasizes the events of the first century to the exclusion of all else that the Bible teaches about the future. They end up denying the future return of Christ at the final eschaton. They believe that even these promises were fulfilled in 70AD. Obviously, this is not a valid option for loyal Catholics."

He writes that there are two major difficulties with hyperpreterism ...1--the Church has always cherished those passages that clearly speak of Christ's return at the final eschaton and 2--hyperpreterism has no adequate explanation for the existence of death in our presence experience. 

that Hyperpreterists fail to understand the Bible adequately because they hold a radical sense of sola scriptura and come to the passages with a preset agenda and they impose a 21st century mindset on it. 

.....................

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and In Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell, the third dayHe arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. 

.........................

Well that's one way to put it.

But seriously, of LaHaye and Jenkin's "Left Behind" movie, series and books on the Rapture...

Besides there being nothing in the Holy Bible to support the Rapture, their endtimes religious fantasy was embellished and spiced with some political-economical "prophecies". This is where the authors took the Scriptural texts about ancient Hebraic Israel and applied them directly to modern day state of Israel. This has been picked up and spread like a virus amongst those who have convinced themselves it's all true and happening as we speak.

 Based on this fantasy and other erroneous Scriptural interpretations, they believe, with the "church" out of the way, having been snatched up, the Jews will once again become the primary focus of God's election, that the Christian age is simply an intermediate age between two Jewish ages, and that God will establish an earthly kingdom in Israel with its capitol in Jerusalem.

The Dallas Theological Seminary, a leading center for the Rapture theory issued the following:  "Dispensationalists see a clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the church."  "God is not finished with Israel. The Church did not take Israel's place. They have been set aside temporarily, but in the end times will be brought back to the promised land, cleansed, and given a new heart." Rod Dreher, "Evangelicals and Jews together: and unlikely alliance", National Review online, April 5, 2002.

We heard something very similar from Jytheir and that's the reason for my dense post of #36. St.Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Romans and Hebrews absolutely demolishes these ideas set forth by LaHaye and Jenkins, as well as the Dallas Theological Seminary. 

In the Old Testament God chose a special people, Israel, and prepared it for the coming of a Redeemer. Ancient Israel was the chosen people of the Old Covenant God made with it. As a preparatory religion, biblical Judaism was the true religion of God until such a time as the Messias should come. The true Jew was one who loved God and was united in spirit with the Savior to come. The Messias/Savior did come and instituted a New Covenant to all the people and founded a new Church to fulfill this alliance. The Old Covenant Mosaic religion was abrogated when all that it had foreshadowed was realized. The shadow gave way to the substance. The religion of Christ was its perfect fulfillment and the Jews should have recognized and accepted it. They did not accept Christ or His religion. 

The authors of "Left Behind", the movie, series and books, and the Dallas Theological Seminary take no consideration that Christianity is the perfect development of Biblical Judaism, just as the perfect tree is the perfect development for the seed from which it grew. 

Doing this, they "forgot"/"forget" that Talmudic Judaism became an enemy of Christ, its official books assail outright Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, the Catholic Church and its Christian dogmas. 

They "forgot"/"forget" that present day Israel is the fruit of the Zionist movement that aimed to create a State that would already be a kind of messias or place where a Jewish messias would triumph. 

They "forgot"/"forget" that present day Israel and Talmudic Judaism is a clear negation of the Messianic mission of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.  

Our Lord Jesus Christ was fully aware of the prophecy of Isaias 2:2, that all nations be called to His Church. "All" means all and that includes present day Israel. And that's why in St.Matt. 28:19, Christ Himself commands the Apostles to "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." 

Rick Warren?  No, Rick Nohr!  The pastoral staff at my church attended Dallas Theological Seminary, at least 2 of them did, and some continue to, so a lot of stuff I learn about comes from there, where people actually read the Bible and interpret it instead of relying on things outside of the Bible to interpret it.  If it was important enough for me to know, God would have written it down, Lula dear.

Lula, things are going to change for Isreal.  God isn't done with them.  He's just set them aside for the time being.  And there's no passages in those Epistles that says otherwise.

Those passages are from the greatest Jewish convert of them all, Saint Paul of Tarsus...he clearly knew there aren't two  Covenants  in effect.

He infallibly teaches that with Christ there is only one biblical concept and it's not modern Israel or Talmudic Judaism.

Ah__________ your pastor.     

I checked out the website and the following reminds me of the same style of teaching-preaching I sat under while I was attending Calvary Chapel in South Africa:

'I generally teach through books of the Bible verse-by-verse explaining the original meaning of the Scriptures and offering contemporary applications for every day life.'

You say:

'....instead of relying on things outside of the Bible to interpret it.'

Of course, if you told you pastor that he'd probably laugh and tell you that he had to study a lot of 'thing outside of the Bible to interpret it'   

Peace,

Aeryck

No harm.  

Extremes are always a danger!  SOLO vs SOLA Scriptura is certainly a problem that was well covered by Keith Mathison's essay: The Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of SOLO Scriptura

The subject of the canon of Scripture is vast and I'm certainly not qualified to discuss it with you, but I think if you ask your pastor about that he'll certainly guide you to some good books to read on the subject, as well as studies in textual criticism, hermeneutics and biblical theology (add to that a study of exegesis and biblical languages) and the use of scholarly commentaries which are vital to enable one have a more open-minded approach to studies (but not so open-minded that you brains drop out)  

+)(+

On-topic:  I notice that your church has a summary of beliefs and in particular the following:

'11. We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved, and the everlasting punishment of the lost. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, Revelation 20:4-6)'  

I'd be interested to learn how your pastor interprets both those passages:

Peace,

Aeryck